I read that article before, and read up on the Dr who wrote that paper. Interesting to note when he was challenged with evidence of increased participation in NCAA an High School sports, he has nothing.

Another counter to his theory is that less resources provided to women’s sport could result in a lack of support and interest, equaling reduced participation. Again, he had nothing.

Link?

_________________Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

Haha I’m not your researcher.Go to http://www.google.com and start from there if you want to read it. I found it pretty quickly

That's not very polite forum conduct - if you bring something up, 'just Google it' is not a very sterling response to a request for sources.

BTW, a quick Google search from me did not turn up this debate where someone brought up the NCAA and he had nothing to say, so I'd still appreciate it if you could produce it. I did however find this humorous blog from 2012, where someone called Kluger out for not doing his research properly when he said the Earth wouldn't be destroyed in December.

Note that I don't agree with Kluger's assertions, and my own personal experience does not back them up: in the families that I knew growing up, including my own, when the parents were more open about letting their children seek their own gender roles they were much less inclined to follow the societal norms. I am a believer that there are some biological behavioral differences between males and females, but I am not a believer that most gendered behaviors and preferences are hard-wired into people.

Haha I’m not your researcher.Go to http://www.google.com and start from there if you want to read it. I found it pretty quickly

That's not very polite forum conduct - if you bring something up, 'just Google it' is not a very sterling response to a request for sources.

BTW, a quick Google search from me did not turn up this debate where someone brought up the NCAA and he had nothing to say, so I'd still appreciate it if you could produce it. I did however find this humorous blog from 2012, where someone called Kluger out for not doing his research properly when he said the Earth wouldn't be destroyed in December.

Note that I don't agree with Kluger's assertions, and my own personal experience does not back them up: in the families that I knew growing up, including my own, when the parents were more open about letting their children seek their own gender roles they were much less inclined to follow the societal norms. I am a believer that there are some biological behavioral differences between males and females, but I am not a believer that most gendered behaviors and preferences are hard-wired into people.

bradtheboywonder - I did actually have a look for it prior to requesting the link but like Exediron couldn't find any reference to the comments you were referencing, hence why I asked you.

Until you post a link I can only assume this to be yet another example what appears to be your MO in regards to this subject of allegation without substantiation.

Exed - I agree that the debate can be had regarding the degree of nurture and nature when discussing behavioural aspects of the males and females. I also agree we are a combination of both to a certain extent but I subscribe to the theory that our cultural structure is largely a result of the application of our natural instincts over time. Yeah, we're now suitably intelligent and developed to be able to identify the wrongs in our culture and take steps to rectify them but inherently we are still predominantly governed by genetics and evolutionary instinct. We still display some of the same traits as our Neanderthal ancestors but we now do it on a more subtle and sophisticated level.

I'd be interested to know where those who argue that our gender preferences and behaviours are more a consequence of nurture over nature stand in regards to homosexuality? Why can we not argue then that homosexuality is more a result of the environment the child is raised in and not a result of a genetics and if this is indeed the case then we should be able to influence ones sexual preferences through environmental modifications?

FWIW, I believe homosexuality is overwhelmingly the result of a genetic anomaly, with nurture a minor contributing factor. Kind of what this article states.

If, as people suggest, the general level of female competitiveness is so low, then a women's only series is a terrible idea. The best way to improve is to compete with people better than yourself and 'up your game' to beat them. A women's series would likely produce one dominant woman who would then still probably not be at F1 level and with nothing to aspire to, where is the motivation to spend that extra time at the gym or in a simulator?

It would be a much better idea for a team to find a promising youngster and school them much like McLaren did with Lewis.

All of this. Specifically with regards to the last part: a few years ago, Red Bull signed Beitske Visser in their RBJT after reasonable (not superb, but quite alright) results in her rookie year in Formula ADAC. However she failed to improve in her second year, and was dropped again. So although she has arguably been the best/leading female single seater driver in Europe of the last years, even that wasn't even remotely enough for RBR to persist and invest in her. The following years she competed in FR3.5 and GP3 with very limited success, and she has made the switch to GT racing now.

Two years ago, Sophia Flörsch was regarded as a great up and coming talent. While she is still only 17 and a lot is still possible, she has had a hard time in German F4 and hasn't finished in the top 10 overall standings in two seasons.

Coming to my overall message: this is the state of affairs currently and it shows why some ideas are just too far out there, such as:- having a women-only single seater championship in F2 cars- forcing F1 teams to race one male and one female driver

The first idea: there just aren't enough competent female racing drivers to fill up a grid of F2 cars without it turning into a ridiculous comical show.The second idea: see previous, but with two added negatives. Firstly, they would just be humiliated by their male teammates. Secondly, they would take seats off of drivers (young, aspiring F1 drivers or established ones) that would actually deserve a seat on merit.

So both ideas would do far more harm than good, unless "good" means providing comic relief in the margin of "actual racing".

There is more sense to the idea of an entry-level series, F4 level or maybe even karting. The risk of this series though is that without much more interest from young girls, the result of this will be that there is still not enough talent entering, the winners would then graduate into a mixed gender championship and they would be at the back once again. Again this would do more harm than good.

So in the end... It all starts with young girls showing interest in the sport. That is what should be worked on.

I’ll say the same thing I always say. Women, in significant quantities, just aren’t that interested in motorsports. The vast majority of young girls don’t take any interest in karting and as such never progress to anything near F1 level.

I can’t see there being anywhere near enough interest in a women’s racing series to bring in the sponsors to fund it. Women aren’t going to watch something just because there are other women doing it. If women want to watch racing, they can watch F1, touring cars, WEC, FE etc. Like everyone else. They aren’t going to care about to some 2-bit racing series just because other women are driving.

Precisely. When a young girl understands how easy it is to become Instagram "model" and what kind of difficult and demanding career motorsport requires, the choice is very obvious.

If they have 'the need for speed' - the answer is obvious - GO RACING!